We already replaced Pythagorean's Theorem, for use in non-Euclidean geometry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Ad-based service without ads" is different from "Customer-based service". Will not the premium customers still get the ad-focused "maximize engagement" algorithm?

If I understand your argument properly, you're suggesting that things will be OK with the reefs because "survival of the fittest" will produce a population of corals better adapted to warmer conditions.

Let me first point out is that this isn't really an argument, it's a hypothesis. In fact this is the very question that actual *reef scientists* are raising -- the ability of reefs to survive as an ecosystem under survival pressure. There's no reason to believe reefs will surivive just because fitter organisms will *tend* to reproduce more, populations perish all the time. When it's a keystone species in an ecosystem, that ecosystem collapses. There is no invisible hand here steering things to any preordained conclusion.

So arguing over terminology here is really just an attempt to distract (name calling even more so) from your weak position on whether reefs will survive or not.

However, returning to that irrelevant terminology argument, you are undoubtedly making an evolutionary argument. You may be thinking that natural selection won't produce a new taxonomic *species* for thousands of generations, and you'd be right. However it will produce a new *clade*. When a better-adapted clade emerges due to survival pressures, that is evolution by natural selection. Whether we call that new clade a "species" is purely a human convention adopted and managed to facilitate scientific communication.

You don't have to take my word for any of this. Put it to any working biologist you know.

Nope, my argument is that both companies acted in their best interest.

The business case for Google vs Apple leaving China are vastly different:
1) Apple sells hardware which people pay big money for, abandoning their users is a bad look. Google's thing is internet search, which is useless when censored, and available anyways via proxy.
2) Removing a few apps is different than the highly detailed censorship and snooping that would be asked of Google.
3) There's tons of alternate search engines just a click away, Google could vanish near instantly if they are perceived as inferior.
4) Can almost guarantee that Google would have had to do infinite snooping, censorship, and propaganda promotion before being replaced anyways.

There you go, as you say the majority of the posts aren't spam. I imagine well over 1% of your google search results for dating will be ripoffs or even worse.

However shitty reddit may be, at least it's real humans talking about things humans care about. Way better than the spammers that have bamboozled google with SEO, which is about to be worsened by AI.

The 5th Amendment isn't about public vs private stuff. It's because at the time it was common to torture people until they confess. Passwords are an interesting case because they can't be a false confession; but confessing that you know the password is confessing that you have access to the account, but the stuff protected by the password is physical evidence and not a confession. There's been cases of people being compelled to share their password after admitting they know it. And biometrics are physical evidence, not a confession.

All the most rapidly developing economies are in developing countries (weird huh?). In terms of population Europe+North America is smaller than Africa and 4x smaller than Asia. So predictions about global population stuff means it's not about you.

Forcing a change doesn't mean making the change at gunpoint, offering choices is the usual method to force a change (eg a competitor "forces" a monopoly to drop their prices).

Yes, people are discovering that you can be under surveillance in public, or not under surveillance in public. For some reason, there's idiots who want a world of being universally under surveillance in public, with all their actions logged and recorded and archived forever.

I won't return in coin by calling you an idiot, because I don't think you are one. What I think you are is too *ignorant* to realize you're talking about evolution. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864 to refer to natural selection, a concept that's in the actual *title* of Darwin's book.

Smashing open your walls to check if anything is hidden inside the drywall is a reasonable search too, as long as they got a proper warrant for it first. Otherwise the search is unwarranted.

Compensating him is probably cheaper than having their source of funding pissed off at them, or having to do safe deorbit of all their trash.

Trump made history by being the oldest president the US has elected, if he wins a second term he'll update that record. He could very well declare himself dictator for life, without violating the two term limit.